Need another confirmation that there's gravity, just look at my post above on the Red Shift phenomenon. It requires gravity and is another completely different form of measurement that doesn't have any of the errors you are needlessly concerned about.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be GRAVITY !

« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 10:15:39 PM by RonJ »

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Although seismic monitors often use ground or underground probes to measure seismic activity, and there is no direct comparison with something that is measuring noise on the surface, and which may be affected by much more surface turbulence, we find the following:

With all the 'noise' you see in the experiments above why don't you just feast your eyes on just one of the examples that are illustrated above that shows that the earth is in a known gravitational field and a couple of atomic clocks in a laboratory can show you how. In case you really had any doubts about gravity here is just another example of how to see the effects.

Now if you want to see the religious aspect of this same effect just take a look at the video above.

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Those are a lot of diagrams, Tom. Does it mean that the green sections in the diagrams are where you believe that the gravity of the earth can best be measured? According to the legend the green part is where the gravity anomalies are very close to zero. It looks like at those points, according to the charts you have referenced everything should be good to go. Maybe the scientists already have some absolute gravimeters there and can make good accurate measurement of the earths gravity at those points that will meet your very tight specifications with minimal anomalies. I do believe then those measurements would indeed be a representation of the acceleration of a body due to the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass.

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Look at the areas near Greenland, North of Australia, Japan, Middle East

I'm not sure what your angle is regarding plates and gravity anomalies. There is a correlation, so to speak, and research has definitely been done. But I don't see this as a refutation of the ability to measure gravity.

"Gravity Anomalies and Their Relation to Major Tectonic Features in the North-Central Pacific

Gravity anomalies in the north-central Pacific have been obtained aboard the USC&GS Ship SURVEYOR with a LaCoste and Romberg surface-ship gravity meter. The data lie along several profiles from the Hawaiian Archipelago to 39°N between 167°W and 173°30'W and extend across the north side of the Hawaiian Archi-pelago and portions of the Murray. Pioneer. Mendocino and Surveyor fracture zones. The accuracy of measurements is estimated to be within + 5 mga1 and the data are in agreement with those published by Worze1 on the basis of 1948 submarine pendu1um measurements. t,'1aps of free-air and Bouguer anomalies are presented and some of their crustal structural implications are discussed."

The volcanoes at Hawaii are active -- noisy. Why should we see a little red spot on the map at Hawaii, and only Hawaii in that area, but not red spots at every mountain in Australia, America and Russia?

Why not red all along the equator where the earth allegedly bulges out?

Although seismic monitors often use ground or underground probes to measure seismic activity, and there is no direct comparison with something that is measuring noise on the surface, and which may be affected by much more surface turbulence, we find the following:

Here are three readings from the report I cited above.

982972760.4982972761.1982972759.1

You see these are different. The first differs from the second by 0.7 microGal, the third from the second by 2.0 microGal. There were 80 readings taken between 4 and 7 November 1995, all differing slightly. The ‘standard deviation’ of the readings, effectively the average difference from the average, was 1.86. The average was 982972759.9.The maximum reading was 982972762.8, the minimum was 982972754.4, giving a difference of 8.4 microG. These are all statistically expected, and are caused by noise.

But the instrument is not measuring noise, as you claim. It is affected by noise. What it is measuring is the quantity given by the big number, to 9 figures, and we can be reasonably certain that the central estimate is statistically robust. The quantity measured is observed acceleration. A number of other adjustments are required to give the acceleration due to gravity, on the hypothesis that it is the earth’s gravity that is causing the acceleration, not UA.

On the anomalies data, don't confuse the observed acceleration from the instrument, which is what I have been talking about, with the adjustments required to give the 'anomaly'. That is a separate issue, and requires a model that derives theoretical gravity based on RE model plus Newton.

Can we stick to the measurement of the acceleration alone, which is independent of any assumptions about RE and Newton etc?

Tom has made the case for gravity very nicely with all the colored charts. Gravity manifests itself by producing a measurable force between two masses separated by a distance. The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not perfectly homogeneous. The density of the earth is also quite variable. That means that there will be variations in mass as you travel across the surface of the globe. Those density variations are certainly not consistent since the earths crust has a consistency more like a Mulligan Stew. Those inconsistencies in mass are being manifested in fluctuations of gravity that’s being accurately measured by the traveling gravimeters. Thank you, Tom, for showing us all the nice colored encoded charts of all those gravity anomalies that perfectly illustrate the inconsistencies of the density (and mass) of the earth’s crust.

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Tom has made the case for gravity very nicely with all the colored charts. Gravity manifests itself by producing a measurable force between two masses separated by a distance. The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not perfectly homogeneous. The density of the earth is also quite variable. That means that there will be variations in mass as you travel across the surface of the globe. Those density variations are certainly not consistent since the earths crust has a consistency more like a Mulligan Stew. Those inconsistencies in mass are being manifested in fluctuations of gravity that’s being accurately measured by the traveling gravimeters. Thank you, Tom, for showing us all the nice colored encoded charts of all those gravity anomalies that perfectly illustrate the inconsistencies of the density (and mass) of the earth’s crust.

1. We start with the observed acceleration. Note acceleration, not gravity. In effect, we drop an object from a height, measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance, then work out acceleration from the well-known formula using time and distance. This measurement will give the same result whether we are on a globe with ‘gravity’, or whether a flat earth with UA. It is 'theory neutral'.

2. Then separately we work out, using latitude, elevation above sea level, facts about the terrain etc, what the theoretical gravity should be, i.e. the acceleration due to gravity.

3. So we have two measurements which are quite separate, namely observed acceleration (which might have been caused by anything, including UA) and theoretical acceleration (which is specifically attributable to gravity).

4. We subtract the theoretical number from the observed number. This is the ‘anomaly’, i.e. the difference or anomaly between theory and practice.

5. The anomaly is what the coloured charts are showing. The received wisdom is that the anomaly is due to the higher density of rocks around mountain ranges and volcanic regions.

I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation for latitude.

The red is simply measuring the difference between the theory and the practice. There is a good fit around the equator. There is not such a good fit around the plates, because of the density. Nothing to do with ‘bulge’.

I have demonstrated the gravity anomalies are associated with seismic zones, and have shown that they do not align with all of the major mountain ranges.

In return we have received undemonstrated thoughts about hypothetical underground masses, as if liquid rock and volcanic rock is more dense than other rock. This is conjecture, not demonstration. I encourage you to build a better argument that does not rely on hypothesis.

I have demonstrated the gravity anomalies are associated with seismic zones, and have shown that they do not align with all of the major mountain ranges.

In return we have received undemonstrated thoughts about hypothetical underground masses, as if liquid rock and volcanic rock is more dense than other rock. This is conjecture, not demonstration. I encourage you to build a better argument that does not rely on hypothesis.

But you've given no reason gravity anomalies should align with mountain ranges. If anything that's conjecture on your part that they should. What does it matter if they happen to align with at least some active volcanic/tectonic regions? What does that mean? You appear to suggest it means they should be thrown out, but I'm not sure how that makes sense, nor am I sure that's what you are attempting to suggest. Be plain about what position you are attempting to suggest please.

I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation for latitude.